Pretrial Wraps Up for Alleged Document Leaker

By Donna Miles

American Forces Press Service

 

FORT MEADE, Md.  – The prosecution and defense rested today after delivering their closing statements in the Article 32 hearing of a soldier charged with leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents.

 

Today’s session, which adjourned at about 10:30 a.m., wrapped up eight days of pre-trial proceedings in the case against Army Pfc. Bradley E. Manning that began Dec. 16.

An Article 32 hearing, often compared to a civilian grand jury, is a pretrial hearing to determine if grounds exist for a general court martial, the most serious of courts martial.

 

The investigating officer, Army Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, now has until Jan. 16 to issue his recommendations to the Special Court Martial Convening Authority, a Military District of Washington spokesperson told American Forces Press Service.

 

Alamanza may ask for an extension, if needed, the official said.

His report will recommend that the case be referred to a court martial, or that some or all of the charges against Manning be dismissed.

 

The Special Court Martial Convening Authority, Army Col. Carl Coffman, will then provide Alamanza’s recommendation to the General Court Martial Convening Authority, and indicate whether he concurs with it, the MDW official said.

 

Manning, an intelligence analyst, is suspected of leaking military and diplomatic documents to the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks in what officials believe is the biggest intelligence leak in U.S. history.

 

WikiLeaks, in turn, released thousands of these documents, including classified records about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on its website last year.

 

At the time, then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and other senior defense officials condemned the organization’s actions, claiming the act put deployed service members at an increased risk.

 

The Article 32 hearing marked 24-year-old Manning’s first appearance in a military court since his arrest in Iraq in May 2010.

 

He faces more than 20 charges alleging he introduced unauthorized software onto government computers to extract classified information, unlawfully downloaded it, improperly stored it, and transmitted the data for public release and use by the enemy.

 

The charge of aiding the enemy under Article 104 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice is a capital offense; however, the prosecution team has said it won’t recommend the death penalty, a legal official said.

 

If convicted of all charges, Manning would face a maximum punishment of life in prison. He also could be reduced to E-1, the lowest enlisted grade, face a total forfeiture of all pay and allowances and dishonorable discharge, officials said.

 

(Editors’ Note: Elaine Sanchez contributed to this article.)

Sixteen Arrested for Cyber Attacks to Avenge Wikileaks

More Than 35 Search Warrants Executed in United States, Five Arrests in Europe as Part of Ongoing Cyber Investigations

WASHINGTON—Fourteen individuals were arrested today by FBI agents on charges related to their alleged involvement in a cyber attack on PayPal’s website as part of an action claimed by the group “Anonymous,” announced the Department of Justice and the FBI. Two additional defendants were arrested today on cyber-related charges.

The 14 individuals were arrested in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, and Ohio on charges contained in an indictment unsealed today in the Northern District of California in San Jose. In addition, two individuals were arrested on similar charges in two separate complaints filed in the Middle District of Florida and the District of New Jersey. Also today, FBI agents executed more than 35 search warrants throughout the United States as part of an ongoing investigation into coordinated cyber attacks against major companies and organizations. Finally, the United Kingdom’s Metropolitan Police Service arrested one person and the Dutch National Police Agency arrested four individuals today for alleged related cyber crimes.

According to the San Jose indictment, in late November 2010, WikiLeaks released a large amount of classified U.S. State Department cables on its website. Citing violations of the PayPal terms of service, and in response to WikiLeaks’ release of the classified cables, PayPal suspended WikiLeaks’ accounts so that WikiLeaks could no longer receive donations via PayPal. WikiLeaks’ website declared that PayPal’s action “tried to economically strangle WikiLeaks.”

The San Jose indictment alleges that in retribution for PayPal’s termination of WikiLeaks’ donation account, a group calling itself Anonymous coordinated and executed distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks against PayPal’s computer servers using an open source computer program the group makes available for free download on the Internet. DDoS attacks are attempts to render computers unavailable to users through a variety of means, including saturating the target computers or networks with external communications requests, thereby denying service to legitimate users. According to the indictment, Anonymous referred to the DDoS attacks on PayPal as “Operation Avenge Assange.”

The defendants charged in the San Jose indictment allegedly conspired with others to intentionally damage protected computers at PayPal from Dec. 6, 2010, to Dec. 10, 2010.

The individuals named in the San Jose indictment are: Christopher Wayne Cooper, 23, aka “Anthrophobic;” Joshua John Covelli, 26, aka “Absolem” and “Toxic;” Keith Wilson Downey, 26; Mercedes Renee Haefer, 20, aka “No” and “MMMM;” Donald Husband, 29, aka “Ananon;” Vincent Charles Kershaw, 27, aka “Trivette,” “Triv” and “Reaper;” Ethan Miles, 33; James C. Murphy, 36; Drew Alan Phillips, 26, aka “Drew010;” Jeffrey Puglisi, 28, aka “Jeffer,” “Jefferp” and “Ji;” Daniel Sullivan, 22; Tracy Ann Valenzuela, 42; and Christopher Quang Vo, 22. One individual’s name has been withheld by the court.

The defendants are charged with various counts of conspiracy and intentional damage to a protected computer. They will make initial appearances throughout the day in the districts in which they were arrested.

In addition to the activities in San Jose, Scott Matthew Arciszewski, 21, was arrested today by FBI agents on charges of intentional damage to a protected computer. Arciszewski is charged in a complaint filed in the Middle District of Florida and made his initial appearance this afternoon in federal court in Orlando, Fla.

According to the complaint, on June 21, 2011, Arciszewski allegedly accessed without authorization the Tampa Bay InfraGard website and uploaded three files. The complaint alleges that Arciszewski then tweeted about the intrusion and directed visitors to a separate website containing links with instructions on how to exploit the Tampa InfraGard website. InfraGard is a public-private partnership for critical infrastructure protection sponsored by the FBI with chapters in all 50 states.

Also today, a related complaint unsealed in the District of New Jersey charges Lance Moore, 21, of Las Cruces, N.M., with allegedly stealing confidential business information stored on AT&T’s servers and posting it on a public file sharing site. Moore was arrested this morning at his residence by FBI agents and is expected to make an initial appearance this afternoon in Las Cruces federal court. Moore is charged in with one count of accessing a protected computer without authorization.

According to the New Jersey complaint, Moore, a customer support contractor, exceeded his authorized access to AT&T’s servers and downloaded thousands of documents, applications and other files that, on the same day, he allegedly posted on a public file-hosting site that promises user anonymity. According to the complaint, on June 25, 2011, the computer hacking group LulzSec publicized that they had obtained confidential AT&T documents and made them publicly available on the Internet. The documents were the ones Moore had previously uploaded.

The charge of intentional damage to a protected computer carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Each count of conspiracy carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

An indictment and a complaint merely contain allegations. Defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

To date, more than 75 searches have taken place in the United States as part of the ongoing investigations into these attacks.

These cases are being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices for the Northern District of California, Middle District of Florida, and the District of New Jersey. The Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section also has provided assistance.

Today’s operational activities were done in coordination with the Metropolitan Police Service in the United Kingdom and the Dutch National Police Agency. The FBI thanks the multiple international, federal, and domestic law enforcement agencies who continue to support these operations.

Army Adds 22 Charges Against Wikileaks Informant

From a U.S. Army Military District of Washington News Release

FORT LESLEY J. MCNAIR, D.C., March 2, 2011 – After seven months of additional investigation by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command and other investigative agencies, the Army has added 22 charges in the case of a military intelligence analyst accused of leaking classified material.

The new charges against Pvt. 1st Class Bradley E. Manning allege that he introduced unauthorized software onto government computers to extract classified information, unlawfully downloaded it, improperly stored it, and transmitted the classified data for public release and use by the enemy.

The investigation remains ongoing, officials said.

"The new charges more accurately reflect the broad scope of the crimes that Private 1st Class Manning is accused of committing," said Capt. John Haberland, a legal spokesman for U.S. Army Military District of Washington. "The new charges will not affect Private 1st Class Manning's right to a speedy trial or his pretrial confinement."

U.S. military officials in Baghdad preferred two charges consisting of 12 specifications against Manning on July 5. Officials said the commander of U.S. Army Headquarters Command Battalion preferred the new charges yesterday.

In addition to a charge of aiding the enemy in violation of Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the new charges include 16 specifications under the UCMJ’s Article 134:

-- One specification of wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet knowing that it is accessible to the enemy;

-- Five specifications of theft of public property or records, in violation of 18 U.S. Code 641;

-- Eight specifications of transmitting defense information in violation of 18 U.S.C. 793(e);

-- Two specifications of fraud and related activity in connection with computers in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(1); and

-- Five specifications in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ for violating Army Regulations 25-2, "Information Assurance," and 380-5, "Department of the Army Information Security Program."

The charge of aiding the enemy under Article 104 is a capital offense, officials said. However, they added, the prosecution team has notified the defense that the prosecution will not recommend the death penalty to the convening authority, Maj. Gen. Karl R. Horst, commanding general of the U.S. Army Military District of Washington.

Under the UCMJ, the convening authority ultimately decides what charges to refer to court-martial, and whether to seek the death penalty if Article 104 is referred. Therefore, if convicted of all charges, Manning would face a maximum punishment of reduction to the lowest enlisted pay grade,; total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for life, and a dishonorable discharge.

At the request of Manning's defense attorneys, the trial proceedings have been delayed since July 12, pending the results of a defense-requested inquiry into Manning's mental capacity and responsibility, pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial 706. Depending on the results of the inquiry, an Article 32 hearing may follow, officials said. An Article 32 hearing is the civilian equivalent of a grand jury, with additional rights afforded to the accused, they explained.

Manning remains confined in the Marine Corps Base Quantico brig in Quantico, Va. He was notified of the additional charges in person during a command visit today, officials said.

Officials emphasized that Manning is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and added that the Army is committed to ensuring his continued safety and well-being while in pretrial confinement.

Green Party leaders challenge the new Congress to restore the rule of law after a decade of constitutional violations and abuses of power by Presidents and other officials

Greens cite election theft, vote theft, torture, warrantless surveillance of US citizens, official lies and impunity, 'preemptive' military attacks, denied rights in DC and Puerto Rico

WASHINGTON, DC -- Green Party leaders challenged Democrats and Republicans in the 112th Congress, as well as President Obama, to end a decade of reckless violations of the US Constitution, international agreements, and other laws by the US government and begin a new era of respect for the rule of law.

"The new Congress began with a reading of the Constitution in the US House, but the document seems to be incomprehensible for many Representatives," said Muhammed Malik, co-chair of the Miami-Dade Green Party in Florida (http://www.miamidadegreenparty.org). "The protections enshrined in the constitutional amendments and Article Six's requirement that the US honor treaties are not subject to the whims of Presidents, State Departments, the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Administration, or any other government body. If we don't restore the rule of law now, we're in danger of seeing the end of the US as a republic and a free country."

Greens listed examples of official lawlessness and disregard for rights since 2000:

The Obama Administration has maintained many of the Bush-Cheney abuses of the Constitution: denial of habeas corpus, detention of suspects for long periods without charges, persecution of whistleblowers, targeting of innocent Muslim and Arab individuals and organizations, and surveillance without warrant of US citizens. The Obama Justice Department has refused to investigate and prosecute Bush-Cheney officials for torture and other crimes -- including President Bush himself, who has boasted publicly of his approval for waterboarding.

Guantanamo and several 'black sites' remain open. The treatment of Khalid El-Masri (tortured under the US's extraordinary rendition program, later found to be innocent), PFC Bradley Manning (detained in solitary confinement but unconvicted for leaking classified material to Wikileaks: see http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning and http://www.psysr.org/about/programs/humanrights/gates-manning-letter.php), and other prisoners reveals increasing disregard for laws against torture in the US Constitution and Geneva Conventions.

The Green Party of the United States endorsed impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) introduced articles of impeachment in December 2006, before joining the Green Party and becoming the 2008 Green presidential nominee.

Military action outside of immediate self-defense is prohibited under international law, but the Bush Administration launched the invasion of Iraq based on the neocon doctrine of 'preemption,' which is now embraced by both Democrats and Republicans. Some members of Congress have urged a military assault on Iran based on the same doctrine.

The US, under both Bush and Obama presidencies, has continued to politically support and fund Israel's brutal treatment of Palestinians, which violates scores of UN Security Council resolutions and amounts to war crimes under international law.

The Wikileaks cables have exposed extralegal actions and official lies, including US airstrikes in Yemen (denied by President Obama), secret military operations in Pakistan, a secret agreement with Britain to allow US bases in the UK to stockpile cluster bombs, and bribery and illegal surveillance to undermine opposition to US climate change policies (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4215).

"Exposure of wrong-doing by government officials, which often requires publication of secret documents, is the responsibility of the press in a free society. The claim that Julian Assange doesn't deserve First Amendment protections because he isn't a credentialed reporter is unfounded, since the First Amendment covers everyone, not just professional journalists," said Pat LaMarche, weekly columnist for Maine's largest daily newspaper, The Bangor Daily News and 2004 Green nominee for Vice President. (See http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=372)

Irregularities in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections disenfranchised thousands of US citizens, especially black, young, and low-income voters. The Supreme Court's patently biased Bush v. Gore decision (2000), which handed the presidency to George W. Bush, held that no national right to vote exists.

Greens led the effort in 2004 to expose and challenge election irregularities in Ohio and New Mexico (http://www.iwantmyvote.com). Although two Republican operatives were convicted in January 2007 of election tampering in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Congress has taken no action to protect voters' rights.

Greens have argued that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment requires punishment for states that "abridge" voting rights. In the wake of the 2004 election, Asa Gordon, chair of the DC Statehood Green Party's Electoral College Task Force, filed suit against the malapportionment of Electoral College votes under the US's winner-take-all election system, citing Section 2's penalty clause and the legacy of racial disenfranchisement in southern states.

On Jan. 4, the day before the first session of the 112th Congress, Mr. Gordon was granted an emergency presentation of arguments before US District Court Judge Henry H. Kennedy challenging the seating of Representatives from southern states. Mr. Gordon's motion is currently pending. (More information and documents: http://www.electors.us or contact Asa Gordon at 202-635-7926)

Whole populations of the US remain outside the US Constitution's coverage. The local laws of the District of Columbia are subject to Congress's control and veto power, regardless of the will of DC residents. Whether Democrats or Republicans have been in control, the White House and Congress have ignored the repeated requests by the citizens of the nation's capital, with its black majority, for full representation in Congress and statehood.

The US has also ignored demands by the people of Puerto Rico for self-determination and independence, ignoring protests against US Navy bomb detonations in Vieques, which have spread depleted uranium contamination, and unwanted laws and policies imposed on the island by the US government.

"The Green Party calls for the end of the colonial treatment of people living in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and others who've been denied self-determination and self-government," said Darryl! L.C. Moch, who serves on the steering committee of the DC Statehood Green Party (http://www.dcstatehoodgreen.org). "We support statehood for DC (http://www.gp.org/press/pr-state.php?ID=172). We support the 2005 draft resolution by the UN's Special Committee on Decolonization calling on the US to allow the Puerto Rican people to exercise fully their right to self-determination and independence (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/gacol3121.doc.htm). Bipartisan inaction on DC and Puerto RIco are an affront to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the US's own equal protection laws. It's time to complete the unfinished business of the Civil Rights Movement and the national rights of US colonies."

Source: Green Party

Why Wikileaks is a threat to International Security and Julian Assange is a traitor, Part 3

By Zach Foster

Click to view Part 1 or Part 2

Now that it has been established that Assange is a traitor to his country and an aide to terrorists, it is only fair to credit the successes of Wikileaks which have benefited the world.  There are indeed a great many bad things that need to be exposed, whose exposition not only benefits the world but also tends to bring attention to laws instead of violating them.  Assange, through Wikileaks, exposed the numerous extrajudicial assassinations taking place in Kenya, saying "It is a reflection of the courage and strength of Kenyan civil society that this injustice was documented. Through the tremendous work of organisations such as the Oscar foundation, the KNHCR, Mars Group Kenya and others we had the primary support we needed to expose these murders to the world."  The exposition of the Kenyan murders shows how laws were being broken and human rights were being violated left and right.  This is completely unlike the situation in the Iraq and Afghanistan war zones, which are under martial law and whose governments are engaged in armed combat against terrorist organizations that make an official policy of brutal torture and mass executions.  Furthermore, despite the seeming unethicality nature of water boarding or using fire hoses on detainees during interrogation, these actions are being carried out against unlawful combatants who have no protection whatsoever by the Geneva Convention.  It is almost humorous to look back on the capture of terrorists running houses of torture, where innocent civilians (alleged prisoners of “holy war”) had their fingers cut off, jaws ripped off, and then were executed by decapitation on film, and these terrorists had the nerve to demand their rights according to the Geneva Convention!

Assange’s exposing of secret documents of the Church of Scientology that show the “church’s” habits of preying upon the finances of its members, requiring certain fees amounting to thousands of dollars as a prerequisite for advancement in the church.  That was something that potential church members (and even un-knowing current ones) need to be made aware of.  Often times, hypocrisy by governments and politicians has been exposed.  If a member of a government is passing anti-drug legislation, or other legislation that takes a key moral side, and then engaging in contrary behavior in private, then a situation has arisen in which it is only ethical to blow the whistle.  Murders, scams, and outright lying are things that people need to be made aware of.

However, Assange’s actions in regards to the leaking of classified military documents have crossed many lines, both legal and moral.  It is unethical for him to get actively involved in foreign affairs and then feel victimized by prosecution for crimes he committed abroad.  Furthermore, it is unethical for him to make decisions that highly affect the status of wars when he knows nothing about war, especially about American just wars (whether people agree with the Iraq War or not, the U.S. has an obligation to rebuild a country it broke).  Regardless of mistakes that countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Afghanistan, and Iraq have made, their current governments and militaries could never be anywhere near as bad as the people they are fighting today.

Julian Assange has done good work in the past that is a credit to journalism.  His recent work however—work which he and his supporters have vehemently defended—has caused incredible harm.  This shows the change in a man who started a once good organization, now taking himself too seriously as prolific journalist—too seriously as a hero—rather than a servant of the people.  The truth is that Assange, in his quest to be the first to get the big, juicy scoop, has unknowingly lost himself in his career and become a servant for terror.  Many of his supporters cry over and over again, “Don’t shoot the messenger!”  Their basis for the argument and their chosen figure of speech is faulty; it’s not right to shoot the messenger when all he is doing is delivering the message—his job.  However, when the messenger eavesdrops on a conversation he knows absolutely nothing about, on a topic he has absolutely no expertise in, and the messenger makes a situation incredibly worse, then he has done wrong and can’t realistically expect to be patted on the back.

Nonetheless, there still is hope for Assange.  He needs to acknowledge that he has done harm to the international community, to militaries engaged in wars whose end goals are for the greater good, and to fledgling democratic governments struggling to build their future.  He needs to acknowledge that he allowed his selfishness and motivation to be the leading journalist get in the way of his true objectives.  Lastly, he needs to promise that his journalistic abilities will from now on be put to helping people in need, as he has done in the past.

END

Why Wikileaks is a threat to International Security and Julian Assange is a traitor, Part 2

By Zach Foster

Click to view Part 1

Let us pay closer attention to the language used by Sun Tzu and von Clausewitz.  They both elaborate on how information can hurt the enemy.  But wait!  The information posted by Wikileaks helped terrorists and hurt the Coalition which includes the Australian military.  Assange is an Australian citizen!  Could this appearance of treason be innocent, merely an accidental side effect in a dedicated journalist’s quest for freedom of information for the public?  Perhaps.  However, Assange was warned by the Australian government in 2009 that his site would be censored in Australia for national security reasons over the posting of numerous classified documents of many governments, including the Australian government (He couldn’t realistically be arrested by Australian authorities as he doesn’t formally reside anywhere, always on the move from one country to another).  Then he leaked military documents again.  The second leak certainly makes circumstances appear that he has made his choice about whom his enemies are, and one of them is his own country as he continues to leak information that aids terrorists and insurgents in the Iraq and Afghan wars.

Assange’s CONTINUED act of releasing military intelligence to the world public, knowing that terrorist and insurgent organizations benefit from it, satisfied the requirement for treason in Australian Criminal Code 80.12 (d), since he is now levying war as an intelligence spy for terrorists.  His continued leaks of military intelligence shows engagement in conduct that assists an enemy at war with the Commonwealth—treason according to paragraph (e).

While his treason according to paragraphs (d) and (e) could ALMOST be argued against on philosophical grounds, paragraph (f) was very explicitly fit by Assange’s actions, since he has engaged in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist (ii) an organization that is engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force.  Perhaps the first leak wasn’t intended to assist terrorists, but the knowing disregard for that during repeat offenses does constitute intent.  Several Australian soldiers were wounded by hostile fire and explosions in the Iraq War and twenty-one Australian Defense Force troops have been killed in the ongoing Afghanistan War at the time this article was written.  All of the above fulfillments of treason serve to fulfill the “overt act” mentioned in paragraph (h).

While Assange cannot be tried or convicted of treason by any foreign court, he certainly can face those charges and that trial in Australia.  Furthermore, if it can be proven that these leaks of military intelligence by the terrorist spy Assange caused the deaths of American servicemembers in Iraq or Afghanistan, then Assange legally falls under the jurisdiction for prosecution by the United States, and could very well face trial if Great Britain (his current jailers) allow his extradition to the United States.  Remember those historical figures mentioned who were killed abroad for intervening in foreign affairs and violating foreign laws while abroad.

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines a spy as “one who keeps secret watch on a person or thing to obtain information.”  Spying is what Assange and his underlings do in order to fuel Wikileaks.  There is no question about it.  Furthermore, Assange and the Wikileaks contributors are aware that this leak of governments’ classified information provides valuable information to terrorist groups.  Assange’s conduct as a terrorist spy fulfills the requirements for seditious conspiracy against the United States according to United States Code Title 18, section 2384, “If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States…”

Assange’s actions which have been proven above to have levied war against Australia have also levied war against the United States, since terrorists and insurgents fighting against the United States have benefited on several occasions from intelligence posted online by Assange.  Assange obviously didn’t know this vital military information before he received it, but the fact that someone sent this military information to him AND he approved (and has since defended) its posting, this proves that two or more people in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States have conspired to levy war against the United States (war zones are under martial law and the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice, and any cyberspace holding U.S. military secrets can be acted upon by agents of the United States for purposes of national and international security.  Even through engaging in cyber warfare, Assange has made himself an enemy combatant).

Assange can also be prosecuted for crimes against the United States according to Title 18, section 2388, “Activities affecting armed forces during war.”  While much speculation has been given to the vast jurisdiction that both the United States and Australian governments have for prosecution of Assange, no one has speculated on the numerous grounds whereupon the governments of IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN can prosecute him!  After all, his actions and the actions of the organization for which he is editor-in-chief have directly contributed (if not led) to the danger and serious harm or deaths of their countries’ citizens.  Let it be known that, while many of these arguments are philosophical in nature, their basis is firmly founded on written law.

Concluded in Part 3.

Why Wikileaks is a threat to International Security and Julian Assange is a traitor

By Zach Foster

What happens when private citizens go abroad and disrupt the affairs of foreign nations?  If they go abroad and break any laws or codes whatsoever, they will be at the mercy of the country whose jurisdiction they are in.  In 1860 the filibuster (paramilitary pirate) William Walker, notorious for assembling private armies and attempting to conquer numerous Latin American regions to establish republics over which he would be the sovereign, was arrested and executed by the Honduran government.  He violated their laws with his presence in their country as a foreign invader with public intent to overthrow the sovereign government.  In 1838 Samuel Lount, an American citizen and native of Pehnnsylvania, was executed by the Royal Canadian government.  He got involved in Canadian politics and led an armed uprising in 1837.  Jamaican citizen Edward Nathaniel Bell was executed in 2001 for the murder of a Virginia police officer.  Clyde Lee Conrad, a US Army soldier, was arrested in 1990 by German authorities and sentenced to life in prison for spying on NATO for the People’s Republic of Hungary.

What did these individuals have in common?  Each of them got involved with the affairs of other nations, violating their laws, and being rightfully subjected to their laws and jurisdiction.  Has Julian Assange, the editor-in-chief of Wikileaks, commited any offenses against foreign governments as a private citizen?  Has Julian Assange betrayed his own country?  The answer to both is yes.

Upon being accused by the international community of treason, including a great many Americans outraged by the leaking of hundreds of thousands of Iraq and Afghanistan War documents, Assange has complained publicly in protest of such accusations that he is an Australian, not a United States citizen, and thus not guilty of treason.  The fact remains that he is, though it must be admitted that most people calling him a traitor have been passionately name-calling without knowing the basis of his treason.

Let it be known that, while Assange is guilty, he is by no means the only one guilty, for he is simply the tip of the iceberg.  While there are countless moles working toward the success of Wikileaks, Assange must fulfill his leadership role as editor-in-chief and take responsibility for the illegally leaked documents.  As editor-in-chief, Assange personally approves the content that is posted on the site.  Assange’s repeated approval of posting classified documents from the Iraq and Afghan wars marks him as a traitor to his own country, Australia, which participated in the Coalition of the Willing for five years, and continues to participate in the Afghan War coalition with over one thousand troops in the country, rebuilding the infrastructure, aiding the democratic government, and fighting the Taliban insurgents.  Section 80.12 of the Australian Criminal Code defines treason in several paragraphs.  Assange is guilty of treason according to paragraphs d, e, f, and h.

"A person commits an offence, called treason, if the person: (d) levies war, or does any act preparatory to levying war, against the Commonwealth; or (e) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist, an enemy: (i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared; and (ii) specified by Proclamation made for the purpose of this paragraph to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth; or (f) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist: (i) another country; or (ii) an organisation; that is engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force; or (h) forms an intention to do any act referred to in a preceding paragraph and manifests that intention by an overt act."

In war, critical information can be more valuable to an army than regiments of soldiers.  The historically famous Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz, author of On War, writes in Book I Chapter 6: “By the word ‘information’ we denote all the knowledge which we have of the enemy and his country.”  Military strategist Sun Tzu writes of the value of information in chapter 13 of The Art of War.  Sun Tzu writes “Thus, what enables the wise sovereign and the good general to strike and conquer, and achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary men, is foreknowledge.  Knowledge of the enemy's dispositions can only be obtained from other men.”  He also writes “Hence the use of spies, of whom there are five classes: (1) Local spies; (2) inward spies; (3) converted spies; (4) doomed spies; (5) surviving spies” and “Having inward spies, making use of officials of the enemy.”  The most recent local/inward spy of military intelligence aiding Wikileaks was Army PFC Bradley Manning.  While Assange is neither responsible for Manning’s actions not did he directly influence them, he did peruse the classified documents and approve their posting.

Among the hundreds of thousands of classified military documents posted by Wikileaks in recent years for the world to see were memos and after action reports detailing the names and numbers of military units, detailed descriptions of combat and other counterinsurgency operations, and most critically, the names of Iraqi/Afghan soldiers and policemen and, most unfortunately, the names of local civilians who served as informants for Coalition troops as well as the democratic Iraqi/Afghan authorities.  This was a devastating blow to the war efforts and even more painful for Iraq and Afghanistan.  These documents released online have now given “a hundred ounces of silver” (Sun Tzu) in rich information to the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other insurgents fighting against Coalition troops and the governments of Iraq and/or Afghanistan.  If a blow was dealt to Coalition troops, then a blow was also dealt to Australian military forces, as they frequently work side by side with US and Afghan troops to this day.

How has this helped these insurgents and terrorists?  They now know exactly which military units are operating where, as well as what part of operations they play in Enduring Freedom and New Dawn (then Iraqi Freedom), knowledge on how they fight in battle (so that they can be fought more effectively and ferociously), the IDENTITIES of indigenous soldiers and police officers so that they can be tracked down and “executed” (murdered), and the identities of CIVILIAN informers and partners in rebuilding the country, so that they can be “executed” (murdered, “made examples of”), thus severing vital information that would have gone to Coalition troops and government authorities.  The Australian military was an active participant in Operation Iraqi Freedom for five years and continues to be an active participant in Operation Enduring Freedom (the Afghanistan War).

Let us pay closer attention to the language used by Sun Tzu and von Clausewitz.  They both elaborate on how information can hurt the enemy.  But wait!  The information posted by Wikileaks helped terrorists and hurt the Coalition which includes the Australian military.  Assange is an Australian citizen!

Continued in Part 2

Government officials afraid of a full-body scan of their words should resign, says LP Chair

WASHINGTON - While Democratic and Republican politicians outdo each other with calls for the prosecution and even execution of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange for providing information to various news media, Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle says that free speech and freedom of the press must be supported unconditionally. Hinkle released the following statement today:

"In 1787, as the U.S. Constitution was being written, Thomas Jefferson wrote, 'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.' His recognition of the critical need for a free press led him and others to demand a Bill of Rights, where freedom of speech and freedom of the press were listed in the very first amendment to the Constitution.

"In 2010, Democratic and Republican politicians alike are trying to destroy this precious liberty. The Obama Administration, which has already invoked the 'state secrets' claim in court more than any administration in history, has arrested Army Private Bradley Manning, alleging that he copied and leaked various documents, and is holding him in solitary confinement pending a military trial. Meanwhile, Republican presidential hopefuls are falling over themselves seeing who can sound the toughest. Mike Huckabee says that anything less than execution of the leaker is too kind. Newt Gingrich wants Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, declared an 'enemy combatant' so that he can be denied all due process. And Sarah Palin wants Assange hunted down like Osama bin Laden (perhaps missing the irony that bin Laden has not been caught).

"Even more ominously, companies which provided various services to WikiLeaks suddenly decided to end their relationship after receiving pressure from Washington. Amazon, PayPal, Visa, and MasterCard all suddenly felt that the activities of WikiLeaks, well-known to them for years, were illegal, absent any actual charges being filed for the violation of any law. When government officials start pressuring businesses in order to silence critics, tyranny isn't far off.

"Publishing documents provided by a government agent is not a crime. Embarrassing public officials is not a crime. Regardless of the degree to which the released documents are helpful or harmful, Assange and WikiLeaks are exercising their rights, and American politicians and government agents should stop threatening and harassing them.

"Freedom of the press is not a luxury, and the prospect of a government able to silence dissent and prevent the press from communicating unfavorable information about the behavior of government employees should frighten anyone who loves liberty. It is understandable that government officials who are lying to the public and covering up misdeeds want to keep their actions secret, just as a criminal doesn't want the police to find out about his crime. As Steven Greenhut of the Pacific Research Institute notes, 'If it weren't for anonymous sources and leaked information, the journalism business would serve as a press-release service for officialdom.'

"Private Manning deserves the presumption of innocence, due process, a speedy and fair trial, and decent treatment while in prison. If Manning revealed information which did not damage national security or result in harm to others, but instead revealed evidence of incompetence, corruption, or other illegal activities, then he should be able to raise that as a defense at any trial. Just as when Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers in 1971 and had his subsequent prosecution dismissed by the courts, an important principle is that information which is being kept secret to protect wrongdoing is not in fact legally and properly classified. A jury should be able to judge both the facts and the law, and to acquit Manning if the jury finds his actions to be justified.

"Two years ago, candidate Barack Obama praised the long tradition of information leaks by defending those who revealed Bush-era covert actions. 'We only know these crimes took place because insiders blew the whistle at great personal risk.... Government whistle-blowers are part of a healthy democracy and must be protected from reprisal.' Obama appears to have forgotten this statement, just as he has forgotten many other statements and promises he made while campaigning.

"Only a month ago, we were told by the Transportation Safety Administration that they should have the power to strip or grope us if we want to exercise our right of travel. In my view, any government official too embarrassed to handle a full-body scan of their words and actions should resign."

The Libertarian Party platform includes the following:

1.1 Expression and Communication. We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology.

1.5 Crime and Justice. Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to them selves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.

P.S. If you have not already done so, please join the Libertarian Party. We are the only political party dedicated to free markets and civil liberties. You can also renew your membership. Or, you can make a contribution separate from membership.
Source: Libertarian Party

World Press Freedom Day

December 9, 2010

By Suzy

Press release from the U.S. Department of State that “The United States is pleased to announce that it will host UNESCO’s World Press Freedom Day event in 2011…we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.”

Did anyone mention Wikileaks?

Source: World Socialist Party (US)